Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1731

control, N = 861

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

age

171

50.87 ± 12.58 (25 - 75)

51.09 ± 12.74 (25 - 75)

50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)

0.818

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

173

0.679

f

137 (79%)

67 (78%)

70 (80%)

m

36 (21%)

19 (22%)

17 (20%)

occupation

173

0.923

day_training

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

full_time

21 (12%)

11 (13%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

18 (10%)

8 (9.3%)

10 (11%)

other

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (19%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (25%)

21 (24%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (4.0%)

4 (4.7%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (24%)

23 (27%)

19 (22%)

marital

173

0.966

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (13%)

8 (9.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

married

53 (31%)

25 (29%)

28 (32%)

none

83 (48%)

41 (48%)

42 (48%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.3%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

10 (5.8%)

5 (5.8%)

5 (5.7%)

edu

173

0.347

bachelor

39 (23%)

15 (17%)

24 (28%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (24%)

11 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.9%)

4 (4.7%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.7%)

8 (9.3%)

7 (8.0%)

primary

12 (6.9%)

5 (5.8%)

7 (8.0%)

secondary_1_3

19 (11%)

10 (12%)

9 (10%)

secondary_4_5

42 (24%)

19 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

9 (5.2%)

4 (4.7%)

5 (5.7%)

fam_income

173

0.748

10001_12000

6 (3.5%)

2 (2.3%)

4 (4.6%)

12001_14000

10 (5.8%)

4 (4.7%)

6 (6.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.6%)

3 (3.5%)

5 (5.7%)

16001_18000

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

18001_20000

8 (4.6%)

6 (7.0%)

2 (2.3%)

20001_above

32 (18%)

19 (22%)

13 (15%)

2001_4000

24 (14%)

13 (15%)

11 (13%)

4001_6000

19 (11%)

7 (8.1%)

12 (14%)

6001_8000

16 (9.2%)

9 (10%)

7 (8.0%)

8001_10000

14 (8.1%)

7 (8.1%)

7 (8.0%)

below_2000

32 (18%)

14 (16%)

18 (21%)

medication

173

154 (89%)

76 (88%)

78 (90%)

0.787

onset_duration

170

15.50 ± 10.42 (0 - 56)

15.98 ± 11.40 (0 - 56)

15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35)

0.544

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

168

35.55 ± 13.49 (10 - 65)

34.98 ± 12.19 (10 - 61)

36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65)

0.583

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1731

control, N = 861

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

173

3.10 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.699

recovery_stage_b

173

17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

17.92 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)

0.653

ras_confidence

173

29.76 ± 5.27 (14 - 45)

29.37 ± 5.16 (14 - 40)

30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)

0.341

ras_willingness

173

11.78 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.71 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.647

ras_goal

173

17.42 ± 3.13 (7 - 25)

17.16 ± 3.03 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)

0.291

ras_reliance

173

13.31 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

13.08 ± 2.82 (5 - 18)

13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)

0.299

ras_domination

173

9.77 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.50 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

0.322

symptom

173

29.94 ± 9.10 (14 - 56)

30.08 ± 9.46 (14 - 55)

29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)

0.842

slof_work

173

22.33 ± 4.77 (10 - 30)

22.55 ± 4.39 (12 - 30)

22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)

0.554

slof_relationship

173

25.31 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

24.98 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)

0.460

satisfaction

173

20.38 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)

19.56 ± 6.97 (5 - 33)

21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

0.134

mhc_emotional

173

10.76 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.51 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

0.383

mhc_social

173

14.97 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

14.78 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)

0.653

mhc_psychological

173

21.67 ± 6.43 (6 - 36)

21.45 ± 6.27 (7 - 36)

21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)

0.660

resilisnce

173

16.35 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)

15.78 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)

0.113

social_provision

173

13.51 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.12 ± 2.68 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.073

els_value_living

173

16.94 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.66 ± 3.05 (6 - 22)

17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.261

els_life_fulfill

173

12.70 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.23 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)

13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)

0.071

els

173

29.64 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)

28.90 ± 5.76 (11 - 39)

30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)

0.107

social_connect

173

26.59 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

27.08 ± 8.95 (8 - 48)

26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)

0.490

shs_agency

173

14.29 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.77 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)

0.183

shs_pathway

173

15.95 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

15.41 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.091

shs

173

30.24 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.58 (6 - 45)

31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.119

esteem

173

12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.63 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)

0.976

mlq_search

173

14.87 ± 3.59 (3 - 21)

14.50 ± 3.61 (4 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

173

13.34 ± 4.43 (3 - 21)

13.20 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.686

mlq

173

28.20 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)

27.70 ± 6.84 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)

0.357

empower

173

19.13 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.71 ± 4.17 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)

0.202

ismi_resistance

173

14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.41 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.991

ismi_discrimation

173

11.65 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.83 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.462

sss_affective

173

10.22 ± 3.64 (3 - 18)

10.14 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.774

sss_behavior

173

9.90 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

9.99 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.764

sss_cognitive

173

8.43 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

8.36 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.798

sss

173

28.55 ± 10.33 (9 - 54)

28.49 ± 10.18 (9 - 54)

28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)

0.933

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.127

2.89, 3.39

group

control

treatment

-0.071

0.179

-0.422, 0.281

0.694

time_point

1st

2nd

0.175

0.193

-0.204, 0.554

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.328

0.279

-0.219, 0.876

0.242

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.311

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.194

0.438

-1.05, 0.665

0.658

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.215

0.419

-1.04, 0.605

0.608

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.825

0.605

-0.361, 2.01

0.176

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.4

0.565

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

0.766

0.797

-0.796, 2.33

0.338

time_point

1st

2nd

1.28

0.579

0.144, 2.41

0.030

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.532

0.839

-1.11, 2.18

0.528

Pseudo R square

0.026

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.217

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.141

0.305

-0.457, 0.740

0.644

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.127

0.247

-0.612, 0.358

0.608

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

0.358

-0.232, 1.17

0.193

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.341

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.504

0.481

-0.439, 1.45

0.296

time_point

1st

2nd

0.291

0.410

-0.512, 1.09

0.479

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.404

0.593

-0.758, 1.57

0.497

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.313

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.459

0.442

-0.408, 1.33

0.301

time_point

1st

2nd

0.412

0.354

-0.282, 1.11

0.248

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.336

0.513

-0.669, 1.34

0.514

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.255

9.45, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.367

0.360

-1.07, 0.339

0.309

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.108

0.326

-0.748, 0.532

0.741

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.20

0.472

0.274, 2.13

0.013

Pseudo R square

0.022

symptom

(Intercept)

30.1

0.979

28.2, 32.0

group

control

treatment

-0.277

1.381

-2.98, 2.43

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.27

0.863

-2.96, 0.422

0.145

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.351

1.251

-2.80, 2.10

0.780

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.514

21.5, 23.6

group

control

treatment

-0.432

0.725

-1.85, 0.988

0.552

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.103

0.538

-1.16, 0.951

0.848

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.424

0.779

-1.10, 1.95

0.588

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.630

23.7, 26.2

group

control

treatment

0.667

0.889

-1.07, 2.41

0.454

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.456

0.678

-1.79, 0.872

0.502

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.793

0.982

-1.13, 2.72

0.422

Pseudo R square

0.007

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.768

18.1, 21.1

group

control

treatment

1.63

1.083

-0.497, 3.75

0.135

time_point

1st

2nd

0.831

0.760

-0.658, 2.32

0.277

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.670

1.101

-1.49, 2.83

0.544

Pseudo R square

0.022

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.402

9.72, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.500

0.567

-0.612, 1.61

0.379

time_point

1st

2nd

0.490

0.392

-0.278, 1.26

0.215

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.370

0.568

-1.48, 0.743

0.516

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.620

13.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

0.382

0.875

-1.33, 2.10

0.663

time_point

1st

2nd

0.857

0.680

-0.475, 2.19

0.211

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.168

0.985

-2.10, 1.76

0.865

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.710

20.1, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.432

1.001

-1.53, 2.39

0.667

time_point

1st

2nd

1.15

0.767

-0.350, 2.66

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.384

1.111

-2.56, 1.79

0.730

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

15.8

0.493

14.8, 16.7

group

control

treatment

1.13

0.695

-0.232, 2.49

0.106

time_point

1st

2nd

0.794

0.564

-0.310, 1.90

0.162

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.986

0.816

-0.613, 2.59

0.230

Pseudo R square

0.041

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.306

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.780

0.432

-0.067, 1.63

0.072

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.454

0.354

-1.15, 0.240

0.203

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.747

0.513

-0.257, 1.75

0.148

Pseudo R square

0.035

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.345

16.0, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.544

0.486

-0.409, 1.50

0.265

time_point

1st

2nd

0.304

0.371

-0.424, 1.03

0.416

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.215

0.538

-0.839, 1.27

0.690

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.356

11.5, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.928

0.501

-0.054, 1.91

0.066

time_point

1st

2nd

0.531

0.341

-0.138, 1.20

0.123

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.096

0.495

-1.07, 0.873

0.846

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.645

27.6, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.47

0.910

-0.310, 3.26

0.107

time_point

1st

2nd

0.861

0.591

-0.297, 2.02

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.012

0.856

-1.67, 1.69

0.989

Pseudo R square

0.019

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.1

1.008

25.1, 29.1

group

control

treatment

-0.978

1.421

-3.76, 1.81

0.492

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.207

0.960

-2.09, 1.67

0.830

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.45

1.391

-5.18, 0.274

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.547

12.7, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.04

0.771

-0.473, 2.55

0.180

time_point

1st

2nd

0.400

0.538

-0.654, 1.46

0.459

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.370

0.780

-1.16, 1.90

0.636

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.440

14.5, 16.3

group

control

treatment

1.08

0.620

-0.140, 2.29

0.084

time_point

1st

2nd

0.725

0.443

-0.143, 1.59

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.515

0.641

-1.77, 0.743

0.425

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.942

27.3, 31.0

group

control

treatment

2.11

1.328

-0.490, 4.72

0.113

time_point

1st

2nd

1.12

0.913

-0.669, 2.91

0.223

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.158

1.323

-2.75, 2.43

0.905

Pseudo R square

0.016

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.161

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

-0.007

0.227

-0.452, 0.437

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.072

0.257

-0.575, 0.432

0.781

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.097

0.371

-0.629, 0.824

0.793

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.383

13.7, 15.3

group

control

treatment

0.730

0.540

-0.328, 1.79

0.178

time_point

1st

2nd

0.754

0.454

-0.136, 1.64

0.100

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.930

0.657

-2.22, 0.357

0.160

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.473

12.3, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.274

0.667

-1.03, 1.58

0.682

time_point

1st

2nd

0.663

0.503

-0.322, 1.65

0.191

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.244

0.728

-1.67, 1.18

0.738

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.769

26.2, 29.2

group

control

treatment

1.00

1.085

-1.12, 3.13

0.356

time_point

1st

2nd

1.40

0.836

-0.235, 3.04

0.097

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

1.211

-3.51, 1.23

0.349

Pseudo R square

0.006

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.464

17.8, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.842

0.654

-0.440, 2.12

0.199

time_point

1st

2nd

0.903

0.466

-0.009, 1.82

0.056

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

0.675

-2.44, 0.211

0.103

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.274

13.9, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.005

0.386

-0.761, 0.752

0.990

time_point

1st

2nd

0.052

0.347

-0.628, 0.732

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.627

0.502

-0.357, 1.61

0.215

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.337

11.2, 12.5

group

control

treatment

-0.343

0.475

-1.27, 0.588

0.471

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.076

0.435

-0.928, 0.775

0.861

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.511

0.629

-1.74, 0.722

0.418

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.392

9.37, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.159

0.553

-0.925, 1.24

0.774

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.095

0.391

-0.862, 0.672

0.809

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.04

0.567

-2.16, 0.067

0.069

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.99

0.403

9.20, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.172

0.569

-1.29, 0.942

0.762

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.296

0.398

-1.08, 0.484

0.459

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.366

0.577

-1.50, 0.765

0.528

Pseudo R square

0.005

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.36

0.395

7.59, 9.13

group

control

treatment

0.145

0.557

-0.946, 1.24

0.794

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.029

0.432

-0.877, 0.818

0.946

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.940

0.626

-2.17, 0.287

0.137

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.5

1.109

26.3, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.132

1.563

-2.93, 3.20

0.933

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.471

1.020

-2.47, 1.53

0.645

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.15

1.479

-5.04, 0.753

0.150

Pseudo R square

0.007

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(245) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(245) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.55], t(245) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(245) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.31, 18.53], t(245) = 57.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.66], t(245) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.61], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.01], t(245) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.37 (95% CI [28.26, 30.48], t(245) = 51.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.33], t(245) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.14, 2.41], t(245) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.18], t(245) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.71 (95% CI [11.28, 12.13], t(245) = 54.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.74], t(245) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.36], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.17], t(245) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.49, 17.83], t(245) = 50.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.45], t(245) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.09], t(245) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.57], t(245) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.70], t(245) = 41.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.33], t(245) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.11], t(245) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.34], t(245) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.45, 10.45], t(245) = 38.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.34], t(245) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.53], t(245) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.27, 2.13], t(245) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.12, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.08 (95% CI [28.16, 32.00], t(245) = 30.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 2.43], t(245) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.42], t(245) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 2.10], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.55 (95% CI [21.54, 23.55], t(245) = 43.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.99], t(245) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.95], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.95], t(245) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.98 (95% CI [23.74, 26.21], t(245) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.41], t(245) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.87], t(245) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.72], t(245) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.56 (95% CI [18.05, 21.06], t(245) = 25.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.75], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.32], t(245) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.83], t(245) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.72, 11.30], t(245) = 26.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.61], t(245) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.26], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.74], t(245) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.56, 15.99], t(245) = 23.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.10], t(245) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.19], t(245) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.76], t(245) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.45 (95% CI [20.06, 22.84], t(245) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.39], t(245) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.66], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.79], t(245) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.78 (95% CI [14.81, 16.74], t(245) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.49], t(245) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(245) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.59], t(245) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.52, 13.72], t(245) = 42.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.63], t(245) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.24], t(245) = -1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.75], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.99, 17.34], t(245) = 48.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.50], t(245) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.03], t(245) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.27], t(245) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.54, 12.93], t(245) = 34.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.91], t(245) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.20], t(245) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.87], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.845; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.90 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(245) = 44.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.26], t(245) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.69], t(245) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.08 (95% CI [25.11, 29.06], t(245) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.81], t(245) = -0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.67], t(245) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-5.18, 0.27], t(245) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.77 (95% CI [12.70, 14.84], t(245) = 25.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.55], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(245) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.90], t(245) = 0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.54, 16.27], t(245) = 35.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.29], t(245) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.59], t(245) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.74], t(245) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.33, 31.02], t(245) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 4.72], t(245) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.91], t(245) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.75, 2.43], t(245) = -0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.50e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.63 (95% CI [12.31, 12.94], t(245) = 78.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44], t(245) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.43], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.82], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.50 (95% CI [13.75, 15.25], t(245) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.79], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.64], t(245) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.36], t(245) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.27, 14.12], t(245) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.58], t(245) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(245) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.18], t(245) = -0.34, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.19, 29.21], t(245) = 36.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.13], t(245) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.04], t(245) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.51, 1.23], t(245) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.71 (95% CI [17.80, 19.62], t(245) = 40.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.12], t(245) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 1.82], t(245) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.24e-03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.21], t(245) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.94], t(245) = 52.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.75], t(245) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -1.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.73], t(245) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.61], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [11.17, 12.49], t(245) = 35.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.59], t(245) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.78], t(245) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.72], t(245) = -0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.14 (95% CI [9.37, 10.91], t(245) = 25.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.24], t(245) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.67], t(245) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.07], t(245) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(245) = 24.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.94], t(245) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.48], t(245) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.77], t(245) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.36 (95% CI [7.59, 9.13], t(245) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.24], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(245) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.29], t(245) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.49 (95% CI [26.32, 30.66], t(245) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.93, 3.20], t(245) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.53], t(245) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.15, 95% CI [-5.04, 0.75], t(245) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

795.240

805.816

-394.620

789.240

recovery_stage_a

random

6

794.247

815.400

-391.124

782.247

6.993

3

0.072

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,225.218

1,235.794

-609.609

1,219.218

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,228.979

1,250.132

-608.489

1,216.979

2.239

3

0.524

ras_confidence

null

3

1,500.788

1,511.364

-747.394

1,494.788

ras_confidence

random

6

1,492.282

1,513.435

-740.141

1,480.282

14.506

3

0.002

ras_willingness

null

3

1,022.771

1,033.347

-508.385

1,016.771

ras_willingness

random

6

1,025.969

1,047.122

-506.985

1,013.969

2.801

3

0.423

ras_goal

null

3

1,259.720

1,270.296

-626.860

1,253.720

ras_goal

random

6

1,260.871

1,282.024

-624.436

1,248.871

4.849

3

0.183

ras_reliance

null

3

1,210.978

1,221.555

-602.489

1,204.978

ras_reliance

random

6

1,210.090

1,231.243

-599.045

1,198.090

6.888

3

0.076

ras_domination

null

3

1,127.813

1,138.390

-560.907

1,121.813

ras_domination

random

6

1,123.864

1,145.016

-555.932

1,111.864

9.950

3

0.019

symptom

null

3

1,745.639

1,756.215

-869.820

1,739.639

symptom

random

6

1,746.306

1,767.459

-867.153

1,734.306

5.333

3

0.149

slof_work

null

3

1,442.065

1,452.641

-718.032

1,436.065

slof_work

random

6

1,447.474

1,468.626

-717.737

1,435.474

0.591

3

0.898

slof_relationship

null

3

1,549.591

1,560.167

-771.795

1,543.591

slof_relationship

random

6

1,553.874

1,575.027

-770.937

1,541.874

1.717

3

0.633

satisfaction

null

3

1,642.805

1,653.381

-818.402

1,636.805

satisfaction

random

6

1,641.252

1,662.405

-814.626

1,629.252

7.553

3

0.056

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,310.527

1,321.103

-652.264

1,304.527

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,314.318

1,335.471

-651.159

1,302.318

2.209

3

0.530

mhc_social

null

3

1,545.205

1,555.782

-769.603

1,539.205

mhc_social

random

6

1,548.516

1,569.668

-768.258

1,536.516

2.690

3

0.442

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,611.341

1,621.918

-802.671

1,605.341

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,614.044

1,635.196

-801.022

1,602.044

3.298

3

0.348

resilisnce

null

3

1,447.585

1,458.162

-720.793

1,441.585

resilisnce

random

6

1,438.721

1,459.874

-713.360

1,426.721

14.865

3

0.002

social_provision

null

3

1,203.462

1,214.038

-598.731

1,197.462

social_provision

random

6

1,201.716

1,222.868

-594.858

1,189.716

7.746

3

0.052

els_value_living

null

3

1,249.491

1,260.068

-621.746

1,243.491

els_value_living

random

6

1,251.456

1,272.609

-619.728

1,239.456

4.035

3

0.258

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,251.530

1,262.106

-622.765

1,245.530

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,250.258

1,271.411

-619.129

1,238.258

7.272

3

0.064

els

null

3

1,543.185

1,553.761

-768.592

1,537.185

els

random

6

1,542.369

1,563.522

-765.185

1,530.369

6.816

3

0.078

social_connect

null

3

1,774.229

1,784.805

-884.114

1,768.229

social_connect

random

6

1,772.029

1,793.182

-880.015

1,760.029

8.200

3

0.042

shs_agency

null

3

1,468.432

1,479.008

-731.216

1,462.432

shs_agency

random

6

1,469.770

1,490.923

-728.885

1,457.770

4.661

3

0.198

shs_pathway

null

3

1,363.217

1,373.794

-678.609

1,357.217

shs_pathway

random

6

1,363.860

1,385.013

-675.930

1,351.860

5.358

3

0.147

shs

null

3

1,739.754

1,750.330

-866.877

1,733.754

shs

random

6

1,740.686

1,761.839

-864.343

1,728.686

5.068

3

0.167

esteem

null

3

910.195

920.772

-452.098

904.195

esteem

random

6

916.097

937.249

-452.048

904.097

0.099

3

0.992

mlq_search

null

3

1,314.661

1,325.237

-654.330

1,308.661

mlq_search

random

6

1,316.825

1,337.978

-652.412

1,304.825

3.836

3

0.280

mlq_presence

null

3

1,404.688

1,415.264

-699.344

1,398.688

mlq_presence

random

6

1,408.191

1,429.344

-698.096

1,396.191

2.497

3

0.476

mlq

null

3

1,652.722

1,663.299

-823.361

1,646.722

mlq

random

6

1,655.329

1,676.482

-821.665

1,643.329

3.393

3

0.335

empower

null

3

1,389.075

1,399.652

-691.538

1,383.075

empower

random

6

1,390.323

1,411.476

-689.162

1,378.323

4.752

3

0.191

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,155.129

1,165.705

-574.564

1,149.129

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,157.435

1,178.588

-572.718

1,145.435

3.694

3

0.297

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,260.611

1,271.187

-627.305

1,254.611

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,263.881

1,285.034

-625.940

1,251.881

2.730

3

0.435

sss_affective

null

3

1,307.094

1,317.670

-650.547

1,301.094

sss_affective

random

6

1,305.328

1,326.481

-646.664

1,293.328

7.766

3

0.051

sss_behavior

null

3

1,314.885

1,325.461

-654.443

1,308.885

sss_behavior

random

6

1,317.585

1,338.738

-652.792

1,305.585

3.300

3

0.348

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,320.308

1,330.884

-657.154

1,314.308

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,321.674

1,342.827

-654.837

1,309.674

4.633

3

0.201

sss

null

3

1,815.201

1,825.777

-904.601

1,809.201

sss

random

6

1,814.946

1,836.098

-901.473

1,802.946

6.255

3

0.100

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

86

3.14 ± 1.18

87

3.07 ± 1.18

0.694

0.073

recovery_stage_a

2nd

41

3.31 ± 1.15

-0.182

37

3.57 ± 1.15

-0.522

0.324

-0.267

recovery_stage_b

1st

86

17.92 ± 2.88

87

17.72 ± 2.88

0.658

0.096

recovery_stage_b

2nd

41

17.70 ± 2.70

0.106

37

18.33 ± 2.68

-0.300

0.301

-0.310

ras_confidence

1st

86

29.37 ± 5.24

87

30.14 ± 5.24

0.338

-0.282

ras_confidence

2nd

41

30.65 ± 4.46

-0.470

37

31.95 ± 4.37

-0.666

0.196

-0.477

ras_willingness

1st

86

11.71 ± 2.01

87

11.85 ± 2.01

0.644

-0.120

ras_willingness

2nd

41

11.58 ± 1.77

0.108

37

12.19 ± 1.75

-0.292

0.126

-0.521

ras_goal

1st

86

17.16 ± 3.16

87

17.67 ± 3.16

0.296

-0.258

ras_goal

2nd

41

17.45 ± 2.84

-0.149

37

18.36 ± 2.80

-0.356

0.157

-0.465

ras_reliance

1st

86

13.08 ± 2.91

87

13.54 ± 2.91

0.301

-0.274

ras_reliance

2nd

41

13.49 ± 2.55

-0.246

37

14.29 ± 2.51

-0.446

0.168

-0.474

ras_domination

1st

86

9.95 ± 2.37

87

9.59 ± 2.37

0.309

0.234

ras_domination

2nd

41

9.85 ± 2.17

0.069

37

10.68 ± 2.15

-0.695

0.091

-0.530

symptom

1st

86

30.08 ± 9.08

87

29.80 ± 9.08

0.841

0.069

symptom

2nd

41

28.81 ± 7.39

0.316

37

28.18 ± 7.20

0.404

0.705

0.157

slof_work

1st

86

22.55 ± 4.76

87

22.11 ± 4.76

0.552

0.171

slof_work

2nd

41

22.44 ± 4.08

0.041

37

22.44 ± 4.01

-0.127

0.993

0.003

slof_relationship

1st

86

24.98 ± 5.84

87

25.64 ± 5.84

0.454

-0.209

slof_relationship

2nd

41

24.52 ± 5.05

0.143

37

25.98 ± 4.96

-0.105

0.199

-0.457

satisfaction

1st

86

19.56 ± 7.12

87

21.18 ± 7.12

0.135

-0.457

satisfaction

2nd

41

20.39 ± 5.99

-0.233

37

22.68 ± 5.87

-0.422

0.089

-0.645

mhc_emotional

1st

86

10.51 ± 3.73

87

11.01 ± 3.73

0.379

-0.273

mhc_emotional

2nd

41

11.00 ± 3.12

-0.267

37

11.13 ± 3.06

-0.065

0.853

-0.071

mhc_social

1st

86

14.78 ± 5.75

87

15.16 ± 5.75

0.663

-0.119

mhc_social

2nd

41

15.64 ± 5.00

-0.267

37

15.85 ± 4.92

-0.215

0.849

-0.067

mhc_psychological

1st

86

21.45 ± 6.58

87

21.89 ± 6.58

0.667

-0.119

mhc_psychological

2nd

41

22.61 ± 5.69

-0.319

37

22.65 ± 5.60

-0.213

0.970

-0.013

resilisnce

1st

86

15.78 ± 4.57

87

16.91 ± 4.57

0.106

-0.422

resilisnce

2nd

41

16.57 ± 4.03

-0.297

37

18.69 ± 3.97

-0.666

0.020

-0.791

social_provision

1st

86

13.12 ± 2.84

87

13.90 ± 2.84

0.072

-0.464

social_provision

2nd

41

12.66 ± 2.51

0.270

37

14.19 ± 2.48

-0.174

0.007

-0.908

els_value_living

1st

86

16.66 ± 3.20

87

17.21 ± 3.20

0.265

-0.311

els_value_living

2nd

41

16.97 ± 2.76

-0.173

37

17.73 ± 2.72

-0.296

0.223

-0.434

els_life_fulfill

1st

86

12.23 ± 3.30

87

13.16 ± 3.30

0.066

-0.582

els_life_fulfill

2nd

41

12.76 ± 2.75

-0.333

37

13.60 ± 2.69

-0.273

0.178

-0.522

els

1st

86

28.90 ± 5.98

87

30.37 ± 5.98

0.107

-0.535

els

2nd

41

29.76 ± 4.92

-0.313

37

31.24 ± 4.80

-0.317

0.179

-0.540

social_connect

1st

86

27.08 ± 9.34

87

26.10 ± 9.34

0.492

0.218

social_connect

2nd

41

26.87 ± 7.77

0.046

37

23.44 ± 7.60

0.593

0.050

0.765

shs_agency

1st

86

13.77 ± 5.07

87

14.80 ± 5.07

0.180

-0.412

shs_agency

2nd

41

14.17 ± 4.26

-0.159

37

15.57 ± 4.17

-0.306

0.142

-0.559

shs_pathway

1st

86

15.41 ± 4.08

87

16.48 ± 4.08

0.084

-0.518

shs_pathway

2nd

41

16.13 ± 3.45

-0.349

37

16.69 ± 3.38

-0.101

0.469

-0.270

shs

1st

86

29.17 ± 8.74

87

31.29 ± 8.74

0.113

-0.495

shs

2nd

41

30.29 ± 7.30

-0.262

37

32.25 ± 7.14

-0.225

0.234

-0.458

esteem

1st

86

12.63 ± 1.49

87

12.62 ± 1.49

0.975

0.006

esteem

2nd

41

12.56 ± 1.48

0.055

37

12.65 ± 1.48

-0.020

0.788

-0.069

mlq_search

1st

86

14.50 ± 3.55

87

15.23 ± 3.55

0.178

-0.338

mlq_search

2nd

41

15.25 ± 3.17

-0.349

37

15.05 ± 3.13

0.082

0.779

0.093

mlq_presence

1st

86

13.20 ± 4.39

87

13.47 ± 4.39

0.682

-0.116

mlq_presence

2nd

41

13.86 ± 3.77

-0.280

37

13.89 ± 3.71

-0.177

0.972

-0.012

mlq

1st

86

27.70 ± 7.13

87

28.70 ± 7.13

0.356

-0.254

mlq

2nd

41

29.10 ± 6.18

-0.356

37

28.96 ± 6.08

-0.067

0.921

0.035

empower

1st

86

18.71 ± 4.30

87

19.55 ± 4.30

0.199

-0.386

empower

2nd

41

19.61 ± 3.64

-0.414

37

19.34 ± 3.56

0.096

0.741

0.124

ismi_resistance

1st

86

14.41 ± 2.54

87

14.40 ± 2.54

0.990

0.003

ismi_resistance

2nd

41

14.46 ± 2.32

-0.031

37

15.08 ± 2.30

-0.407

0.236

-0.373

ismi_discrimation

1st

86

11.83 ± 3.12

87

11.48 ± 3.12

0.471

0.164

ismi_discrimation

2nd

41

11.75 ± 2.88

0.037

37

10.90 ± 2.85

0.280

0.190

0.408

sss_affective

1st

86

10.14 ± 3.64

87

10.30 ± 3.64

0.774

-0.087

sss_affective

2nd

41

10.04 ± 3.07

0.052

37

9.16 ± 3.01

0.621

0.200

0.483

sss_behavior

1st

86

9.99 ± 3.74

87

9.82 ± 3.74

0.762

0.092

sss_behavior

2nd

41

9.69 ± 3.14

0.159

37

9.15 ± 3.08

0.355

0.446

0.289

sss_cognitive

1st

86

8.36 ± 3.66

87

8.51 ± 3.66

0.794

-0.071

sss_cognitive

2nd

41

8.33 ± 3.18

0.014

37

7.54 ± 3.13

0.475

0.268

0.389

sss

1st

86

28.49 ± 10.28

87

28.62 ± 10.28

0.933

-0.028

sss

2nd

41

28.02 ± 8.47

0.099

37

26.00 ± 8.27

0.550

0.289

0.423

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(231.88) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(239.48) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(216.27) = -0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.67)

2st

t(236.76) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st

t(194.07) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)

2st

t(244.84) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.27)

ras_willingness

1st

t(201.05) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.74)

2st

t(240.97) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.40)

ras_goal

1st

t(205.00) = 1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.45)

2st

t(239.17) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.17)

ras_reliance

1st

t(200.20) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)

2st

t(241.41) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st

t(210.71) = -1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.34)

2st

t(237.44) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.80)

symptom

1st

t(187.23) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.45)

2st

t(246.96) = -0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.63)

slof_work

1st

t(195.29) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.00)

2st

t(244.16) = -0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.80)

slof_relationship

1st

t(196.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.42)

2st

t(243.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.78 to 3.69)

satisfaction

1st

t(192.23) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.76)

2st

t(245.78) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.35 to 4.94)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(191.49) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.62)

2st

t(246.11) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.51)

mhc_social

1st

t(198.14) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.11)

2st

t(242.54) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.43)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(197.22) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.40)

2st

t(243.06) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(201.16) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.50)

2st

t(240.92) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.33 to 3.90)

social_provision

1st

t(201.86) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.63)

2st

t(240.57) = 2.70, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.64)

els_value_living

1st

t(196.98) = 1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.50)

2st

t(243.20) = 1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.98)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(190.80) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.92)

2st

t(246.39) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.05)

els

1st

t(188.73) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.27)

2st

t(246.94) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.65)

social_connect

1st

t(190.44) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.82)

2st

t(246.52) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.86 to -0.00)

shs_agency

1st

t(192.01) = 1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.56)

2st

t(245.88) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.29)

shs_pathway

1st

t(193.12) = 1.73, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.30)

2st

t(245.34) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.09)

shs

1st

t(191.22) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 4.73)

2st

t(246.23) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.18)

esteem

1st

t(238.67) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.44)

2st

t(242.36) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.75)

mlq_search

1st

t(203.92) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.79)

2st

t(239.62) = -0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.21)

mlq_presence

1st

t(196.18) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.59)

2st

t(243.66) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.70)

mlq

1st

t(197.58) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.14)

2st

t(242.85) = -0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.60)

empower

1st

t(192.99) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.13)

2st

t(245.41) = -0.33, p = 0.741, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.34)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(209.85) = -0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.76)

2st

t(237.63) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(211.68) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.59)

2st

t(237.25) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.42)

sss_affective

1st

t(192.65) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(245.58) = -1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.47)

sss_behavior

1st

t(192.15) = -0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.95)

2st

t(245.82) = -0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.85)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(198.09) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.24)

2st

t(242.57) = -1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.61)

sss

1st

t(188.94) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.95 to 3.22)

2st

t(246.91) = -1.06, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-5.75 to 1.72)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(121.89) = 2.49, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.10 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.57) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.48)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(90.15) = 2.97, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(94.91) = 1.32, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.86)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(97.75) = 1.62, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(94.31) = 2.01, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.49)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(102.06) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(85.74) = -1.78, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.42 to 0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(90.96) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(92.07) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(88.94) = 1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.09)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(88.46) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(92.89) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.11)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(92.26) = 0.95, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.37)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(94.99) = 3.01, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 2.96)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(95.48) = 0.79, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.03)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(92.10) = 1.33, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.29)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(88.01) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.15)

els

1st vs 2st

t(86.68) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.11)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(87.78) = -2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.65)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(88.80) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.90)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(89.52) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.13)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(88.29) = 1.00, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(131.00) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.56)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(96.96) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.77)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(91.56) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.47)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(92.51) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.01)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(89.44) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.76)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(101.39) = 1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(102.82) = -1.29, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.32)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(89.22) = -2.77, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-1.96 to -0.32)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(88.89) = -1.58, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.17)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(92.86) = -2.13, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.87 to -0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(86.82) = -2.44, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.75 to -0.48)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(116.78) = 0.90, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.56)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(103.32) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.62)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(88.76) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.43)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(93.00) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.37)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(95.52) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.11)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(92.47) = 1.16, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(99.34) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.54)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(84.80) = -1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.45)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(89.48) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.97)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(90.47) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(87.67) = 1.09, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.34)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(87.24) = 1.25, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(91.20) = 1.26, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(90.64) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(93.07) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.92)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(93.51) = -1.28, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.25)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(90.50) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.04)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(86.84) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(85.65) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(86.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.70)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(87.55) = 0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.47)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(88.20) = 1.63, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(87.09) = 1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.94)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(124.76) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(94.82) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.66)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(90.01) = 1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(90.86) = 1.67, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.07)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(88.12) = 1.94, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(98.75) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.74)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(100.01) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.79)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(87.92) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.69)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(87.63) = -0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(91.17) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.83)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(85.77) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.56)

Plot

Clinical significance